The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1887-01-21

meaning was uncertain, and Its effect would be |
Injurious. To strike 1t out would not harm the |
bill; In fact it would be just az strong without
H.
Mr.. Crisp inquired whether the provision Of
the fourth section was not the law in Massachu-
sets.
Mr.. Lone-It is, practically.
Mr.. Crisp-Practically you forbid discrimina-
ton in Massachusetts,
Mr.. Long-But we do not have the interests of
the Pacific coast at stake.
Mr.. Warner Of Ohio. and Mr.. Holman, of In
diana, supported the conference report, and then
the House took recess until 730.
There was very small attendance of men,
bers at the evening session.
Mr.. Morrow, of California protested against
the enactment into law of the provisions of the
long and-short-haul section, as being inimical
to the interests of the people of the Pacific coast
Mr.. McKenna, of California could not consent
to the passage of the bill without protesting
against legislation which was SO detrimental to
the interests of California as the legislation
which was proposed in the fourth section.
Mr. Butterworth, of Ohio, regretted that the
country should be obliged to see the members of
the American Congress betray the peoples in
terests in order to secure the popular favor. lie
opposed the bill because it was ambiguous, be-
cause it placed power in the hands of five men
which ought not TO be lodged in any tribunal on
EARTH and because it would not cure the evils
which it was destined to correct.
Mr.. Anderson of Kansas, said that the rail
road system of the country was under the con-
troll of q few men who had the power-and last
year exercised that power-of collecting from
the people of the United States 1856. 900,
some two or three times as much as the govern
ment had collected. These men had been be-
yond any control except their own general Gus
sedness, and the question now presented was
whether the government should put itself, by
law, between the people and the rapacity Of the
railroads.
Mr.. Howell, of Illinois, replied to many Of the
criticisms advanced against the bill, and argued
that the courts and the commission would have
little difficulty in placing proper Interpretation
upon the provisions of the measure.
Mr.. Henderson. of Iowa, conceded that some
injury might be inflicted upon his section by the
long and short-haul clause, but he did not be-
ieve that the commercial interests of sixty mill
ion people should be controlled and regulated
solely by a dividend interest of few men, and
he was not one of those legislators who would
criticise every proposition unless it suited their
particular notions and the particular interests
that they might represent If any of the features
of the bill proved hartful it could be amended
when Congress met in December next He
would vote for this bill without moments hest
taton, and without fateriag, and without fear.
Mr. Peters. of Kansas, was ready and willing
to vote for the blll. While he had been opposed
to the long and short haul provision of the Rea-
gan bill, he was not opposed to the similar pro-
vision in the pending bill. because he did not
consider it of any binding force or validity. 1t
applied, according to his Interpretation only to
passenger traffic, because the words used were
"passe gers or like kind of property
Mr.. Pettibone, of Tennessee, supported the
bill.
Mr. Hepburn, of Iowa, said that too day there
was no statute which controlled and limited the
greed of railroad corporations. This bill gave
something to remedy the evil, and it was unwise
for a man to starve because he could not have
the fullness OF the repast that he would choose.
Mr.. Bayne. of Pennsylvania, regarded the
general provisions of the bill as good and sound,
and thought that their enactment into law would
be productive Of good results.
Mr.. Burrows of Michigan, favored the bill,
the chief merit of it being its moderation
Mr.. Goff, of West Virginia, and Mr.. LaFol-
lette, of Wisconsin, supported the BILL
Mr.. Brown, of Pennsylvania, objected to the
words, under substantially similar circun-
stances and conditions" in the fourth section.
He thought he saw in this clause the cunning of
the Standard Oil Company. But even with this
clause he would vote for the bill as the best
measure which had been presented to this Con-
gress.
Mr. O'Neill, Of Missouri, referred to the OBJ
jections made against the long -and-short-haul
section and expressed the opinion that if the bill
were recommitted, the defects could be remedied
| and the bill reported back within wenty-four
hours. He was not willing to admit that if he
voted against the conference report, he would,
therefore. vote against the bill. The plain duty
of the House was to perfect the bill, which, in
its present shape, would divert much Of the
| commerce of the country through Canadian
| channels.
Mr. Adams, of New York-Wont you vote for
| the bill as 1t stands2
Mr. ONeill-No, won't will not vote TO,
| the conference report as il stands
| Thr House then. at 1875. adjourned,
L